envamt wrote:which might make buyers realise something they never knew before: VA's are now at least as good if not better than the originals!

I think you're over-egging this pudding.

I am open to making sounds with anything. I use a lot of virtual instruments, and I use a lot of hardware, old and new. Much as I might choose a VI for its specific abilities, or simply for convenience, I'm not blind to the fact that much hardware has a special quality that VIs still cannot recreate, not least of which is the physical interaction.

And I have no problem with that.

VAs are at their very best when they stop trying to emulate old technology and do what they're good at. VIs do not need to try to equal or better hardware - they simply need to take us on other journeys.

All IMO, of course.

Elf is bang on here.. the hardware presents a different journey and while VAs are getting better and offer convenience and recall-ability they just don't offer they same "journey experience" or disciplines that the hardware offers..

Yeah I love Diva and use it all the time but I have much more fun with My AJH modules..

envamt wrote:which might make buyers realise something they never knew before: VA's are now at least as good if not better than the originals!

I think you're over-egging this pudding.

I am open to making sounds with anything. I use a lot of virtual instruments, and I use a lot of hardware, old and new. Much as I might choose a VI for its specific abilities, or simply for convenience, I'm not blind to the fact that much hardware has a special quality that VIs still cannot recreate, not least of which is the physical interaction.

And I have no problem with that.

VAs are at their very best when they stop trying to emulate old technology and do what they're good at. VIs do not need to try to equal or better hardware - they simply need to take us on other journeys.

All IMO, of course.

Elf is bang on here.. the hardware presents a different journey and while VAs are getting better and offer convenience and recall-ability they just don't offer they same "journey experience" or disciplines that the hardware offers..

Yeah I love Diva and use it all the time but I have much more fun with My AJH modules..

Different strokes and each to there own. With a good keyboard controller, eyes shut twiddling the filter knob with Repro-5 on the screen feels the same to me as on my Amdromeda till I open my eyes but even then the Virus kb I use as a controller keeps the illusion going... this is a Prophet-5! Will people still go out with a barrow full of tenners and buy the real thing? If they do its not for the music its for something else. I personally think analog is in its last dying throws and soon people will say 'what's analog? oh yea, that's what granddad used to use, my plugins do all that now.. I do have a wee synth I got but never use it'.

envamt wrote:I personally think analog is in its last dying throws and soon people will say 'what's analog? oh yea, that's what granddad used to use, my plugins do all that now.. I do have a wee synth I got but never use it'.

Yeah... they said that about vinyl records, and recording tape, and analogue consoles too... but people keep on rediscovering them and keeping these things alive -- and for myriad reasons. The same is and will continue to be true of analogue synths.

envamt wrote: I personally think analog is in its last dying throws and soon people will say 'what's analog? oh yea, that's what granddad used to use, my plugins do all that now.. I do have a wee synth I got but never use it'.

I'll agree with most of what's been said here, but the above is ignoring the last couple of years of synth production : analogue is still very much alive and better than ever!

Between some of the great polys that have come out (I have both the Prophet6 and the OB6 and both are absolutely wonderful), the resurgence of cheap monos and the incredible Eurorack community, we have never had so much great kit that a) works, b) works reliably and c) sounds fantastic.

Maybe I'm just showing my age as well, but I seem to remember everyone predicting the death of analogue 30 years ago. Coz digital is great, innit?

Dave B wrote:Between some of the great polys that have come out (I have both the Prophet6 and the OB6 and both are absolutely wonderful), the resurgence of cheap monos and the incredible Eurorack community, we have never had so much great kit that a) works, b) works reliably and c) sounds fantastic.

Maybe I'm just showing my age as well, but I seem to remember everyone predicting the death of analogue 30 years ago. Coz digital is great, innit?

envamt replyed..

Forgot one thing though, Analog synths cost an arm and a leg! (Behringer exception) Computer VA's are super inexpressive or even free. The differences between them for me now does not justify there price. (I have both the u-he Repro-5 and a Diva and both are absolutely wonderful) All that we say about our analogs can now, at last equally be said about VA's. I would love a Pro-6 and OB-6 and if I did shell out the mega bucks for them it wouldn't just be for 'that elusive sound' or 'feel the knobs yea' it would be for something quite different, that elusive illogical something that's hard to pin down, that artists and advertisers love... The Dream

Behringer are taking a risk and a big illogical one at that, one that Roland wouldn't do. They hope the new rising right-brained culture - where logic and practicalities take a back seat - will embrace the dream of owning a real proper analog synthesizer, and not just any old synth but real dream Moogs and Oberheims and Rolands. This plan will only work if they can deliver on quality at consumer prices and sell everybody the dream. Hence the Behringer Model D at a 10th the price of a real one and the Neutron semi modular and Juno clone or whatever analog synth they have up there sleeves that fulfils one thing - our dream.

The key to this strategy is keep the dream alive, 'Yea computers can do tones of stuff but this is the real deal' they say. The truth now is that Behringer and all the other analog synth manufacturers have nothing left on any practical or logical level that can compete with digital. Roland held out because they knew what was ahead but they didn't bank on one thing - it doesn't have to be the most cost effective or elegant solution to the same problem that wins or shares the prize. Our crazy illogical compulsive desires as humans still need to be fulfilled and in a world full of digits and logics analog fills that need nicely and it ticks all the right-brain boxes. The 'less is more' box, the 'can you feel it' box, the 'its got a heart' box, the 'indescribable something' box, in fact most of the attributes we associate with music we can apply to analog and the marketers and advertisers know it.

But my point is this and only this. All the above can be replicated digitally and packaged up and sold as a dream to any dreamer that wants it. Nowadays a big reason analog has a growing market is that digital is so darn affordable - even free - that people feel the need to spend there money on something, anything.. 'oh I know, I'll get some real vco's cause they're real and will hold there price and they just feel better and I can trust them'. A time is coming and has already come when people will just not be able to tell the difference either to look at or interact with or listen to and advertisers and marketers will move in and sell us another dream 'Better Than Analog' or as Behringer years ago put it about there first digital mixer 'Danalog'. God is that the time! I don't half go on abit.. sorry for the rant, night night

That may well be your belief, but it doesn't seem to be one that's shared with a lot of the manufacturers and synth buying public.. If you like playing exclusively in the virtual world, then that's just great, but over the past few years the hunger for the real and the physical is growing and has never been so strong..

Do yourself a favour and step away from your computer.. go and see some of the amazing shows like Synthfest and Superbooth and you might get a better idea of just how much real and exciting stuff is out there..

my take on it is that although the digital realm can now produce near perfect clones of the sounds (and judicious use of controllers can also closely mimic the playing response), we humans are a fickle bunch. We know, intellectually, something to be true, but music is an emotional pastime, so we choose devices and approaches that trigger our emotions. This, in turn, causes our brain to react differently as we ride the relative dopamine and seratonin* waves. Plus you have the whole 'image' thing to deal with. Like it or not, music and musicians are intricately tied to their image. And if a noted performer uses device X, then devotees will also want to use device X. And they might start with a software clone of it, but they will always hanker for the real thing. That's why there is a market for Rolexes, and fake Rolexes.

So whilst we might theoretically acknowledge that there is no logical reason for a lot of analogue devices to exist in 30 years time, I wouldn't bet against the market still thriving.

* Occasionally we add a bit of cortisol in there when something doesn't work, but this happens irrespective of the domain.

There are many differences to analog synths and plugins, but, when done well, *sound* isn't really one of them.

One of the things I would have liked Urs to do when u-he released Repro-1 would be to have two real Pro 1's - one as is, and one with the analog internals replaced with a dedicated computer running Repro, interfaced with the knobs directly etc. Both devices would sound, smell, look and feel the same, both would warm up, and both you would feel the gentle humming/vibrating with the power flowing through it. Pretty sure no one would reliably be able to spot which was digital and which wasn't.. (He wasn't willing to sacrifice a Pro 1 for the task though, which is fair enough!)

As I see it, the main benefits of hardware are a dedicated control surface, and immediacy of use.The benefits of software are cost, multiple instances, flexibility, patch/project recall and automation.

The *sound*, as I say, when done well (there are plugins that don't sound that great), can be a identical as one real analog hardware synth to another - but the *experience* of making music with hardware vs plugins is quite different, no matter how sophisticated a control scheme you have set up.

But don't go thinking that analog hardware will always sound better than plugins either - there are plenty of real synths that can sound quite disappointing these days.

We've never had it so good. But I still don't understand which is taken so long for someone to build a good dedicated synth controller* (although there's a couple in the works now...)

Chevytraveller wrote:That may well be your belief, but it doesn't seem to be one that's shared with a lot of the manufacturers and synth buying public.. If you like playing exclusively in the virtual world, then that's just great, but over the past few years the hunger for the real and the physical is growing and has never been so strong..

Do yourself a favour and step away from your computer.. go and see some of the amazing shows like Synthfest and Superbooth and you might get a better idea of just how much real and exciting stuff is out there..

Yes its true but my point is that what the manufacturers of analogs are selling now is not sound quality or interfaces or features. They know that they cant compete on any level with digital so they compete with each other. Its like they know the score but two markets are better than one. The market for analogs is becoming more irrational and bizarre as time goes on. Its like there's two identical cars except one does 20mpg and has a few features and costs 100k and the other does 100mpg and is packed with features and costs 5k. Its bonkers, people believe the advertisers and buy the car that does vintage mpg and has classic features! Its gone completely crazy, less is more yet it costs 20 times as much. Is it just me? or is there something mental going on here???

This is all about understanding what a model is and how the model relates to the real world.

The real world is boundless and infinite, but a model (from 1st principles) is finite and has boundaries. We are fortunate to have sufficient computer power to create convincing approximations of hardware analogue synths. But no matter how convincing those software synths might sound, only a fool forgets that they are approximisations.

blinddrew wrote:my take on it is that although the digital realm can now produce near perfect clones of the sounds (and judicious use of controllers can also closely mimic the playing response), we humans are a fickle bunch. We know, intellectually, something to be true, but music is an emotional pastime, so we choose devices and approaches that trigger our emotions. This, in turn, causes our brain to react differently as we ride the relative dopamine and seratonin* waves. Plus you have the whole 'image' thing to deal with. Like it or not, music and musicians are intricately tied to their image. And if a noted performer uses device X, then devotees will also want to use device X. And they might start with a software clone of it, but they will always hanker for the real thing. That's why there is a market for Rolexes, and fake Rolexes.

So whilst we might theoretically acknowledge that there is no logical reason for a lot of analogue devices to exist in 30 years time, I wouldn't bet against the market still thriving.

* Occasionally we add a bit of cortisol in there when something doesn't work, but this happens irrespective of the domain.

Well said, I wish I had the skills to say what you just did.. and say such a lot without rabbiting on for half an hour as I tend to do without quite nailing what I am trying to say. You have it bang on.

zenguitar wrote:This is all about understanding what a model is and how the model relates to the real world.

The real world is boundless and infinite, but a model (from 1st principles) is finite and has boundaries. We are fortunate to have sufficient computer power to create convincing approximations of hardware analogue synths. But no matter how convincing those software synths might sound, only a fool forgets that they are approximisations.

If it is a model, it can't possibly be real.

Andy

If that's the case God is a fool for making hands for arms and humans are fools for using tools. An arm is good but an arm and hand is better and a hand grasping a stone gains even more power for certain specific tasks. Neither are approximations because when performing a task its then they become dependant on each and become a whole and we forget everything but perorming the task (till something breaks then we repair/modify and start again). When performing a task it has always been the result that is important and if something comes along and produces the desired result faster, cheaper, easier etc. then we forget the old ways and adopt the new. So it will be with digital over analog, eventually we will forget the old analog ways because digital fits all the right criteria, faster, cheaper, easier, better etc. Only a Luddite hangs on to the old dying ways. When it comes to tools right-brained desire for art and beauty has its place but in all history the left-brained desire for logic and practicalities, cost and usefulness trumps the right every time ... so we make pretty tools that look like old tools but perform better.

There are many differences to analog synths and plugins, but, when done well, *sound* isn't really one of them.

One of the things I would have liked Urs to do when u-he released Repro-1 would be to have two real Pro 1's - one as is, and one with the analog internals replaced with a dedicated computer running Repro, interfaced with the knobs directly etc. Both devices would sound, smell, look and feel the same, both would warm up, and both you would feel the gentle humming/vibrating with the power flowing through it. Pretty sure no one would reliably be able to spot which was digital and which wasn't.. (He wasn't willing to sacrifice a Pro 1 for the task though, which is fair enough!)

As I see it, the main benefits of hardware are a dedicated control surface, and immediacy of use.The benefits of software are cost, multiple instances, flexibility, patch/project recall and automation.

The *sound*, as I say, when done well (there are plugins that don't sound that great), can be a identical as one real analog hardware synth to another - but the *experience* of making music with hardware vs plugins is quite different, no matter how sophisticated a control scheme you have set up.

But don't go thinking that analog hardware will always sound better than plugins either - there are plenty of real synths that can sound quite disappointing these days.

We've never had it so good. But I still don't understand which is taken so long for someone to build a good dedicated synth controller* (although there's a couple in the works now...)

* Pet hobby horse

I totally agree. There are lots of plugins which don't cut it but the few that do are telling me something. One day soon your analog synths will look like the poor cousin next to vsti's and there cost of ownership and manufacture will see them go the way of other superseded technologies. A pinnacle game changer time will come and has come like the time Kasparof got beaten by Deep Blue chess computer and or when CD's arrived. It took a little time for the technologies to become commonplace but who would argue with the sound of 24/96khz audio or SACD's. Novations approach with super sample rate digital oscillators and analog filters is interesting as is the DSI Pro-12 but arguably its what happened before with the old hybrids of yesteryear in an attempt to compete with the all mighty DX7 which at the time single headedly destroyed the analog synth market. A lot has changed since the DX7 so who's to say that the new super powerful cheap digital clones will not destroy it again but this time for good - like the phonograph and CRT TV tubes, dead and buried and in a museum where they belong.